\"There doesn\'t appear to be any other systemic racism by people in authority in the schools that anyone can point to.\"

This is the most wide-ranging whitewash of a number of very serious issues seen to date. The corruption and mismanagement are comprehensive in Melrose, despite what too many locals wish to believe. Just because the public wasn\'t informed about say, the co-conspirators in the cemetery commissioner\'s felonious conduct doesn\'t mean there isn\'t serious misconduct that involved others in city government, only that the pubic was kept out of the loop. Duh!

Since you referenced OCR and turned such a serious situation into your bland whitewash, here\'s the real deal:

OCR found that the Student was subject to a hostile environment based on race.

OCR’s investigation finds that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)

OCR found that the incident was publicized in an online community news article, which
included comments by a city official concerning the incident, and was the subject of
discussion and commentary in the community.

To establish a violation of Title VI under the hostile environment theory, OCR must find
that: (1) a racially hostile environment existed; (2) the recipient had actual or constructive
notice of the racially hostile environment; and (3) the recipient failed to respond
adequately to redress the racially hostile environment. To determine whether a racially
hostile environment exists, the racially-based conduct must be severe, pervasive or
persistent.

After its own investigation, OCR found that the District did not sufficiently respond to the hostile environment. First, its investigation and response was delayed. Second, it did not fully delve into the teacher\'s past behavior to determine the extent of the problem. Third, it did not provide parents with sufficient notice of what had occurred. Fourth, during the investigation, the district did not take action to remedy the effects of the hostile environment on other students. In short, while the District responded to the hostile environment, it did not take adequate steps to address it.

OCR\'s close attention to the way in which the incident affected the entire school community and the way District responded is significant. Courts are often dismissive of what they call \"isolated\" incidents and so long as a district does \"something,\" courts tend to find the response adequate. Here, OCR makes clear that racially hostile comments affect everyone and cannot be viewed in isolation. Thus, it is a districts obligation to broaden the scope of its investigation and response.

The full findings are here.

The resolution agreement, which includes additional steps that the District will take, is here.

In response to the part I bolded in your reply above: That literally is what a slobbering hobo railing about how fluoride is government mind control thinks regarding proof. You are literally saying your conspiracy-addled, fevered imagination is somehow a more reliable source of information than an investigation that resulted in a conviction at a PUBLIC trial. Do you honestly think prosecutors wouldn\'t have been interested in pursuing more charges against more parties if there was any proof of involvement? Straight bonkers, buddy. If you can\'t see that, I don\'t know what else to say.

As for the OCR Report, since you sent me the google link so helpfully, here is a quote from it:

\"Based on its investigation, OCR finds that the District did not comply with its obligations
under Title VI with regard to the complaint allegation. The District has agreed to take the
steps in the enclosed Agreement. OCR will monitor the District’s implementation of the
Agreement until, when fully implemented, the Agreement addresses all of OCR’s Title VI
compliance concerns.

With regard to the Agreement, OCR has agreed to modify certain timelines in Items 2 and
19, the completion of which is dependent, in part, on the issuance of this letter.
Accordingly, the timeline for completion of Item 2 is March 1, 2016. Additionally, the
timeline for completion of the initial needs assessment under Item 19 is May 15, 2016, with
the relevant report due to OCR by May 31, 2016.\"

Were there any additional OCR Reviews you can point to that occurred after 5/31/16? If not, I think we can assume that OCR\'s issue with Melrose\'s response to the incident and preparation for response to future incidents was completed to their satisfaction TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO!

I want to be clear that I don\'t love Taymore. She is pretty much a nothing to me. She could be any Superintendent and I couldn\'t tell the difference. That is not a particularly good job she is doing if that is the case. I just don\'t think she is the devil like this board does. She is just a bland functionary doing her job. Same goes for the Aldermen/School Board and Mayor. I would like to see more exciting people doing big things, but I imagine the big changes you would like to see are diametrically opposed to mine. Maybe it is better, in that case, if it just stays boring. At least I make the effort to see that. You just get frothy-mouthed angry and take your sausage fingers and type out the equivalent of gnashing your teeth over and over again.

This is tired and ya\'ll are jokes. But keep patting yourself on the back and linking to documents that you can\'t be arsed to read critically for yourselves.

He allegedly split the fund with the people he had pose as sellers – none of whom ever owned the plots that were sold, the DA said.

Wile E Coyote, Super Genius, neglects to mention that the ignorant, benighted masses of Melrose made JD LaRock the top votegetter in the 2009 school committee election. He served for a year and a half, then resigned to take a job in Europe. I'd argue his leaving was a greater factor in losing the alderman race than people not understanding his resume. Your mileage may vary.

Please notice another thread in which a poor "no" voter bemoaned the name calling by the "yes" people. And yet this lovely "no" voter accuses yes voters of being gullible and intellectually lazy. Let's stop being *******s to one another, shall we? Maybe assume that people can disagree about what to do without one side or the other being evil or stupid or both?

I like you Come On, but it is what it is. I tell myself all the time to stop visiting this train wreck of a website, but I can't turn away. In a perfect world in which we weren't full of masochistic tendencies, we would leave this cesspool to the dozen or so posters who just continually post the same snoozy arguments and insults over and over and over for perpetuity.

You come to this site as do others because it provides information and insight on the schools and city government that city hall and the school department simply refuses to release. Over the last several years the worst this city has to offer spent hundreds and thousands of dollars attempting to obstruct public records laws and open meeting laws to the point that our own elected representatives on the school committee and in the aldermanic chamber have had to file multiple complaints with the AG's Office and Secretary of State's office just to get even basic information in order to make informed decisions on important votes.

The difference between you and others who come to this site is that you and your cabal use the information to figure out how do damage control and prevent future leaks of city/school administrator malfeasance and stupidity.

The others on this site use the information to better our city and schools and make informed decisions on important future override decisions and elections.

Please notice another thread in which a poor \"no\" voter bemoaned the name calling by the \"yes\" people. And yet this lovely \"no\" voter accuses yes voters of being gullible and intellectually lazy. Let\'s stop being *******s to one another, shall we? Maybe assume that people can disagree about what to do without one side or the other being evil or stupid or both?

I like you Come On, but it is what it is. I tell myself all the time to stop visiting this train wreck of a website, but I can\'t turn away. In a perfect world in which we weren\'t full of masochistic tendencies, we would leave this cesspool to the dozen or so posters who just continually post the same snoozy arguments and insults over and over and over for perpetuity.

You come to this site as do others because it provides information and insight on the schools and city government that city hall and the school department simply refuses to release. Over the last several years the worst this city has to offer spent hundreds and thousands of dollars attempting to obstruct public records laws and open meeting laws to the point that our own elected representatives on the school committee and in the aldermanic chamber have had to file multiple complaints with the AG's Office and Secretary of State's office just to get even basic information in order to make informed decisions on important votes.

The difference between you and others who come to this site is that you and your cabal use the information to figure out how do damage control and prevent future leaks of city/school administrator malfeasance and stupidity.

The others on this site use the information to better our city and schools and make informed decisions on important future override decisions and elections.

Oh Yeah... I forgot to mention the incessant harping on the open meeting laws. Thanks for reminding me!

Also... "cabal". Hah! What a joke! Using that word literally reads like a parody of a paranoiac. It's a sleepy suburb, dude, not Soviet Russia. Ya'll need to stay of InfoWars.

It's funny that you bring up that this is a sleepy little suburb and mention in the same sentence Soviet Russia.... almost as if you are defending against the obvious parallels...hmmmm... And Infowars? Really? The irony here is that I largely vote as a Democrat, but I believe there is no place for partisan politics in local city or town elections; I simply vote in the best interests of the city. It is odd but not surprising that you have no respect for transparency, free speech and public records laws and fail to realize that this is a major problem here in Melrose. What happened to "an educated and informed voter? is this just a slogan?

"In response to the part I bolded in your reply above: That literally is what a slobbering hobo railing about how fluoride is government mind control thinks regarding proof. You are literally saying your conspiracy-addled, fevered imagination is somehow a more reliable source of information than an investigation that resulted in a conviction at a PUBLIC trial. Do you honestly think prosecutors wouldn't have been interested in pursuing more charges against more parties if there was any proof of involvement? Straight bonkers, buddy. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say."

"He allegedly split the funds with the people he had pose as sellers – none of whom ever owned the plots that were sold, the DA said."

That, my friend is a textbook case of conspiracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it? Who were the people posing as sellers, and why were they never charged?

"In response to the part I bolded in your reply above: That literally is what a slobbering hobo railing about how fluoride is government mind control thinks regarding proof. You are literally saying your conspiracy-addled, fevered imagination is somehow a more reliable source of information than an investigation that resulted in a conviction at a PUBLIC trial. Do you honestly think prosecutors wouldn't have been interested in pursuing more charges against more parties if there was any proof of involvement? Straight bonkers, buddy. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say."

"He allegedly split the funds with the people he had pose as sellers – none of whom ever owned the plots that were sold, the DA said."

That, my friend is a textbook case of conspiracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it? Who were the people posing as sellers, and why were they never charged?

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

You do know what alleged means, right? Pretty sure if they could more than allege there would be charges.

Just to confirm, you think Mayor Dolan was involved? Not that, even if there were people posting as sellers, it would just be small time crooks trying to make a quick buck? I can't get on board with that level a conspiracy theorising. It is just plain odd to me.

Of course I know what alleged means. In the criminal justice world, it's the word you have to use prior to a conviction to avoid prejudicing the case.

A conspiracy is "an actual covert plot planned and/or carried out by two or more persons". My question remains. Who were the others involved?

I don't think Dolan had a clue about it. I didn't much care for him, but he's way too smart to get involved in something so stupid and almost certain to be discovered at some point.

Of course it's odd. It's hard for a rational person to understand why anyone would do something so stupid, but in case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of crooks aren't really all that bright.

Okay, then who cares and why does this board mebtion it so much over a year after it got discovered? Also? Why do they always mention it was Folan's godfather? They are trying to hint at some conspiracy. Otherwise it's just a boring crime committed by a bad dude.

Please notice another thread in which a poor \"no\" voter bemoaned the name calling by the \"yes\" people. And yet this lovely \"no\" voter accuses yes voters of being gullible and intellectually lazy. Let\'s stop being *******s to one another, shall we? Maybe assume that people can disagree about what to do without one side or the other being evil or stupid or both?

I like you Come On, but it is what it is. I tell myself all the time to stop visiting this train wreck of a website, but I can\'t turn away. In a perfect world in which we weren\'t full of masochistic tendencies, we would leave this cesspool to the dozen or so posters who just continually post the same snoozy arguments and insults over and over and over for perpetuity.

I know, it's crazy here. I honestly don't know why I participate at all - I've never learned anything of value from any representatives of either side of any issue on this site, either before it closed down or after it started up again. Just a bunch of angry people shouting nonsense past one another.

He calls people poor yet lives in melrose lol. If you’re so wealthy why not take up residence in an actual affluent community? There are plenty in the metro area.

Please notice another thread in which a poor \\\"no\\\" voter bemoaned the name calling by the \\\"yes\\\" people. And yet this lovely \\\"no\\\" voter accuses yes voters of being gullible and intellectually lazy. Let\\\'s stop being *******s to one another, shall we? Maybe assume that people can disagree about what to do without one side or the other being evil or stupid or both?

I like you Come On, but it is what it is. I tell myself all the time to stop visiting this train wreck of a website, but I can\\\'t turn away. In a perfect world in which we weren\\\'t full of masochistic tendencies, we would leave this cesspool to the dozen or so posters who just continually post the same snoozy arguments and insults over and over and over for perpetuity.

I know, it\'s crazy here. I honestly don\'t know why I participate at all - I\'ve never learned anything of value from any representatives of either side of any issue on this site, either before it closed down or after it started up again. Just a bunch of angry people shouting nonsense past one another.

He calls people poor yet lives in melrose lol. If you’re so wealthy why not take up residence in an actual affluent community? There are plenty in the metro area.

Oh, come on. I wasn't using poor in the economic sense and you **** well know it. I was using poor in the "woe is me" sense.

You can learned a lot of value from this either side of any issue on this site, either before it closed down or after it started up again. October 2018.There are no existing checks and balances for are school;s.Just look at the things that should not have came to light.

There are plenty of facts to show why not. Yes seems to be a bit more of an aggressive approach with hostile rhetoric and the same speech and information as well as slogans over and over again just like every other time.

Get your facts and information and tell the community. I vote no becuase when you add the numbers and do the research it does not even come close to adding up. The Mayor has no answers. Taymore talk in circles about a plan for the future. One sentence is one thing the next is the opposite of what was said. Mismanagement! VOTE NO! SPREAD THE WORD! The Yes group spent 25,000 last time. Impressive. Give that money to the Police they need it!

My tax bill is 600 more than last year and this is BEFORE what an Override would cost. No, No No, can’t afford it and will vote NO on April 2nd. By the way, I am a Federal worker who is now furloughed because of a mentally ill president and politicians who have no guts. Trust Melrose politicians? No!

My tax bill is 600 more than last year and this is BEFORE what an Override would cost. No, No No, can’t afford it and will vote NO on April 2nd. By the way, I am a Federal worker who is now furloughed because of a mentally ill president and politicians who have no guts. Trust Melrose politicians? No!

I was leaning towards voting yes but got my tax bill today. Yikes! So don’t try to tell me our taxes are low !! Wow between that and my outrageous water bill living in Melrose is expensive. 5.8 is a lot of money for one city department. I will have to vote NO

And remember, it's 5.8 million a year - FOREVER! I often wonder how they could have the stones to even propose such a thing. These people are so out of touch with reality it's frightening. Also voting no - emphatically.

My tax bill is 600 more than last year and this is BEFORE what an Override would cost. No, No No, can’t afford it and will vote NO on April 2nd. By the way, I am a Federal worker who is now furloughed because of a mentally ill president and politicians who have no guts. Trust Melrose politicians? No!

I was leaning towards voting yes but got my tax bill today. Yikes! So don’t try to tell me our taxes are low !! Wow between that and my outrageous water bill living in Melrose is expensive. 5.8 is a lot of money for one city department. I will have to vote NO

Melrose taxes are not high, stop it. We are much better compared to Saugus than Winchester, just remember that.

Melrose taxes are not high, stop it. We are much better compared to Saugus than Winchester, just remember that.

I'm going into the archives for a reply to that, and my reply is - bunk. A $2400 water bill is a tax. Trash fees are a tax. Paying for modular classrooms and a learning common is a tax. Shall I continue?

Melrose taxes are not high, stop it. We are much better compared to Saugus than Winchester, just remember that.

I'm going into the archives for a reply to that, and my reply is - bunk. A $2400 water bill is a tax. Trash fees are a tax. Paying for modular classrooms and a learning common is a tax. Shall I continue?

It's your reply that is bunk. You have issues with your system if you have a $2400 water bill. I have nothing more to say about that. Mine is $220-$250 quarterly. Get your system checked.

Trash fees are $200 annually (also they are part of the water bill you just decried... so technically you just said the same thing twice). Hate to break it to you, but that ain't much and certainly isn't worth crying about for people on a normal income structure. If it is truly a hardship because you are low income or a senior on a fixed income there are abatement programs that the city offers to cut it in half or get rid of it entirely for you (https://www.cityofmelrose.org/water-and-sewer/pages/water-sewer-trash-discount-abatement-forms)

The learning commons and modular classrooms weren't debt exclusions. They were bonded. There isn't an extra cost to taxpayers for them. Some of your taxes go to pay the bonds but that is all part of the normal tax structure.

So, yes, I would like you to continue. Because all you could come up with was "water bills are a tax". Honestly, that is such a snoozefest of a point at this juncture. Come up with something new already.

My tax bill is 600 more than last year and this is BEFORE what an Override would cost. No, No No, can’t afford it and will vote NO on April 2nd. By the way, I am a Federal worker who is now furloughed because of a mentally ill president and politicians who have no guts. Trust Melrose politicians? No!

Thanks for being even slightly specific about your tax bill. Do you mind going a bit further about how much your home was assessed at this year vs last year? I am almost certainly positive that your house hadn't been reassessed for a while so you were paying artificially low property taxes for a while now.

I know it is hard to look at a $600 increase and be thankful, but you had years of underpaying taxes relative to your actual property valuation. You honestly should be thankful for those years in which you were not reassessed at a higher rate that more accurately reflected market conditions. That was a lot of money you were saving. If you doubt this, think about what you would put your house on the market for if you listed today. Is it closer to the current assessed value or the older assessed value? That is the value at which you should be taxed. It is only fair.

I can tell you that my property was assessed at $15,000 more than last year and my tax bill went DOWN $10/quarterly, and the assessed value of my property is roughly $20,000 lower than what I think it would sell for on a bad day. The truth of the matter is that property taxes went down in Melrose this year. It is just a fact. I know "facts" are up for debate in this current political climate, but I am hoping there are some sane souls on this board who can understand the actual numbers on their tax bill.

It's your reply that is bunk. You have issues with your system if you have a $2400 water bill. I have nothing more to say about that. Mine is $220-$250 quarterly. Get your system checked.

Trash fees are $200 annually (also they are part of the water bill you just decried... so technically you just said the same thing twice). Hate to break it to you, but that ain't much and certainly isn't worth crying about for people on a normal income structure. If it is truly a hardship because you are low income or a senior on a fixed income there are abatement programs that the city offers to cut it in half or get rid of it entirely for you (https://www.cityofmelrose.org/water-and-sewer/pages/water-sewer-trash-discount-abatement-forms)

The learning commons and modular classrooms weren't debt exclusions. They were bonded. There isn't an extra cost to taxpayers for them. Some of your taxes go to pay the bonds but that is all part of the normal tax structure.

So, yes, I would like you to continue. Because all you could come up with was "water bills are a tax". Honestly, that is such a snoozefest of a point at this juncture. Come up with something new already.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you, or maybe you did it deliberately, but in any case, I was referring to my yearly water bill, not quarterly. And for the record, I did have my system looked at to make sure there were no leaks. I also have three kids who shower every day, and generate laundry that needs to be washed. Admittedly, some of that goes to irrigation, but from numerous conversations I've had with other residents, your assertion that your water bill quarterly runs between $220 and $250 seems a little far-fetched, unless you live alone. I don't. And let's not even get started on the way the tiers are structured, which is disgraceful, and in my view, outright thievery.

Your assertion that I don't understand the tax structure is insulting. Of course I know the modulars and learning commons were bonded. The point is that we still have to pay for them, no matter where they fall in the accounting scheme, so they are, in fact, a tax, as is the trash fee. Again, perhaps I should not have assumed you would understand the secondary point that neither of these expenditures was necessary. We were told then that reopening the Beebe was fiscally unrealistic, and all of a sudden now we're being told it's not. Which is it? Your suggestion that there is no extra cost for those bond payments is absolute nonsense. Of course there is. If we didn't have them, there would be no cost.

The bottom line is that for me, it's less about the tax rate than it is about the deception and wastefulness Melrose has been engaged in for years. The bottom line is that I just don't trust that the City is operating in an up-front aboveboard manner. You can insult and denigrate all you want, but none of that changes the facts, and hopefully the majority of taxpayers have just about had enough of it.

It's your reply that is bunk. You have issues with your system if you have a $2400 water bill. I have nothing more to say about that. Mine is $220-$250 quarterly. Get your system checked.

Trash fees are $200 annually (also they are part of the water bill you just decried... so technically you just said the same thing twice). Hate to break it to you, but that ain't much and certainly isn't worth crying about for people on a normal income structure. If it is truly a hardship because you are low income or a senior on a fixed income there are abatement programs that the city offers to cut it in half or get rid of it entirely for you (https://www.cityofmelrose.org/water-and-sewer/pages/water-sewer-trash-discount-abatement-forms)

The learning commons and modular classrooms weren't debt exclusions. They were bonded. There isn't an extra cost to taxpayers for them. Some of your taxes go to pay the bonds but that is all part of the normal tax structure.

So, yes, I would like you to continue. Because all you could come up with was "water bills are a tax". Honestly, that is such a snoozefest of a point at this juncture. Come up with something new already.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you, or maybe you did it deliberately, but in any case, I was referring to my yearly water bill, not quarterly. And for the record, I did have my system looked at to make sure there were no leaks. I also have three kids who shower every day, and generate laundry that needs to be washed. Admittedly, some of that goes to irrigation, but from numerous conversations I've had with other residents, your assertion that your water bill quarterly runs between $220 and $250 seems a little far-fetched, unless you live alone. I don't. And let's not even get started on the way the tiers are structured, which is disgraceful, and in my view, outright thievery.

Your assertion that I don't understand the tax structure is insulting. Of course I know the modulars and learning commons were bonded. The point is that we still have to pay for them, no matter where they fall in the accounting scheme, so they are, in fact, a tax, as is the trash fee. Again, perhaps I should not have assumed you would understand the secondary point that neither of these expenditures was necessary. We were told then that reopening the Beebe was fiscally unrealistic, and all of a sudden now we're being told it's not. Which is it? Your suggestion that there is no extra cost for those bond payments is absolute nonsense. Of course there is. If we didn't have them, there would be no cost.

The bottom line is that for me, it's less about the tax rate than it is about the deception and wastefulness Melrose has been engaged in for years. The bottom line is that I just don't trust that the City is operating in an up-front aboveboard manner. You can insult and denigrate all you want, but none of that changes the facts, and hopefully the majority of taxpayers have just about had enough of it.

I don't live alone. I have a family. We do not overly regulate our water consumption. Our bill has only ever been over $250 one time in the 5 years we have lived at our house. I would bet everything I own that my water bill experience is closer to the typical resident's water bill experience than yours.

Honestly, $600 quarterly is nuts. I feel bad for you if that is the case, but you gotta look inward here. I run my dishwasher daily. We take daily showers and baths. We do many loads of laundry a week and we are nowhere near touching that amount EVER. There is some type of issue in your house or your irrigation is out of control. I can't imagine what any other reason could be. This is a you problem, not a city problem.

The bottom line is that I'm voting no until someone demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt to me that the money we are spending is being spent wisely. I'm not hopeful, given the history, that that's imminent. An example I neglected before is the enormous amount being wasted on out-of-district placements, and legal fees. The only way I have to express my displeasure is with my vote, and that's what I'm going to do.

"The truth of the matter is that property taxes went down in Melrose this year. It is just a fact. I know "facts" are up for debate in this current political climate, but I am hoping there are some sane souls on this board who can understand the actual numbers on their tax bill."

I don't understand how the blanket statement above could be remotely true. The city got their 2.5% increase. Any shift between res&comm was nominal. It is possible that if your assessment went up $10k while the average went up say $30k then your taxes went down, but a general statement that taxes went down seems wrong.

The housing market is crashing and rates are going up, so I don't think it will pass. The houses are coming down so that's why people wanted to sell at this time. The override should be for the police and fire. The schools will stay the same as they have for the passed forty years that I know.

First step is to get rid of Taymore, and replace her with a real educator, like the one that the SC ignored the last time. She's the leader of a mean girl group, not an educator. Whatever success the schools have had is in spite of her, not because of her.

"The truth of the matter is that property taxes went down in Melrose this year. It is just a fact. I know "facts" are up for debate in this current political climate, but I am hoping there are some sane souls on this board who can understand the actual numbers on their tax bill."

I don't understand how the blanket statement above could be remotely true. The city got their 2.5% increase. Any shift between res&comm was nominal. It is possible that if your assessment went up $10k while the average went up say $30k then your taxes went down, but a general statement that taxes went down seems wrong.

Those are tax rates. I thought you were well versed in the basics of prop 2 1/2? The rates go down to offset the increased assessed values, but the end result is still a 2.5% increase in the levy on existing stock.

The OP with whom you were arguing was talking about the tax rate. Don’t believe me? See the direct quote below. I was providing the numbers to back up what he/she was saying. YOU chose to argue based on a different measure. Of course the levy went up 2.5%, as it does and should every year given basic inflation, nevermind the measurable population growth that results in the need for more municipal services.

“I can tell you that my property was assessed at $15,000 more than last year and my tax bill went DOWN $10/quarterly, and the assessed value of my property is roughly $20,000 lower than what I think it would sell for on a bad day. The truth of the matter is that property taxes went down in Melrose this year.”

PS- your earlier assertion (or that of whichever poster is agreeing with you) that trash service is unnecessary is ludicrous.

It doesn't really matter what the tax rate is as a stand alone figure. It has to be coupled with the assessed value and Prop 2 1/2 restraints. It also doesn't matter what you think a property might sell for. That's apples and oranges.

In any given year, there will always be some outliers. Some property owners will see a reduction in the actual tax dollar amount. Most, like me, will not. For example, my assessed value did go up, and with the reduction in the rate the actual tax increase was a less than it would have been had the rate not been reduced, but it had to be reduced to fall within the Prop 2 1/2 ceiling. My actual tax bill did go up, by just about 2.75%, in real dollars. The real measure of whether taxes went up or down is the actual amount collected citywide, and by that measure taxes did go up. If the city collected more in one year than it did the prior year, taxes went up. His individual bill was less than a 2.5%. I believe him when he says his bill total fell. That's good for him, and will almost always happen in a few cases. Mine was not. It increased by slightly less than $600. As long as the total amount citywide did not exceed 2.5%, the law has been complied with.

And yes, the assertion that trash pick up is unnecessary in Melrose is ludicrous. We, unlike Winchester for example, don't have a drop-off facility like they do.

The OP was not simply talking about the tax rate as evidenced by the quote you provided:

"The truth of the matter is property taxes went down in Melrose this year"

If they were talking specifically about rates they would have said rates. My message was simply to correct that. I may have assumed that by showing the decreasing rates you were supporting their argument that taxes were going down on the whole.

What he should have said was that HIS taxes went down. To say that taxes went down is silly on it's face. They didn't. Either he misspoke, or made the erroneous assumption that because his did, everyone's did.

if it’s not for the police or fire, I’m a NO. Schools have had their chance and have blown it. They keep putting incompetent people at the helm who never get the job done correctly. And forget me, this is the opinion of the majority of melrosians. We are a middle class community folks, nothing more, nothing less. NO if it’s for the schools, YES if it’s for police and fire.

What he should have said was that HIS taxes went down. To say that taxes went down is silly on it's face. They didn't. Either he misspoke, or made the erroneous assumption that because his did, everyone's did.

I made it quite clear that I meant rates considering how much I mentioned assessed value in my post. I also made it clear that I realized that some people's taxes would go up because of increased assements. That's why I asked the original poster I was responding to what their new assessment was.

Now, as for you, your taxes went up 600 annually. Your tax rate went down. If you listed your house for sale today, would you list it closer to the assessed value from last year's bill or this year's bill? This can be rhetorical if you'd like, I already know the answer. We should all be taxed on the value we would actually sell our property for. It's only fair. Your taxes in total went up but really they went down too. It would be like me getting a new job that payed 20k more per year, my tax rate going down, but still complaining that I was paying more in total tax money. I know houses are different than jobs in that the money isn't liquid, but it is still value that you have gotten that needs to be taxed at its appropriate value. To argue that it should be charged on an outdated assessment is silly on its face.

My taxes went up from the preliminary assessment so without the override I am paying more. If the override passes, I will be paying even more which scares me because the gas rates doubled in the last bill and I have gas heat.

The override is that basic to me. I pay over $6K in taxes now on a modest older home and that's more than enough. Like everyone else I have utilities, car insurance, home owners insurance, and other costs that even with frugality, I can only reduce so much but are not optional expenses.

Now, as for you, your taxes went up 600 annually. Your tax rate went down. If you listed your house for sale today, would you list it closer to the assessed value from last year's bill or this year's bill?

Neither. I would list it for what I thought the market value is. I wouldn't even consider the assessed value.

What It Is

We should all be taxed on the value we would actually sell our property for.

And how pray tell is that supposed to work? Market conditions change too fast to make that in any way equitable or workable. It would also lead to violating Prop 2 1/2 because compliance with that is based on assessed values, not current market value.

What It Is

Your taxes in total went up but really they went down too.

What? They either did or they didn't.

What It Is

To argue that it should be charged on an outdated assessment is silly on its face.

All assessments are outdated. They don't in any way reflect fair market value. It's apples and oranges.

The concerns of the prior poster UP are fair and accurate. I have all of the same concerns, in addition to having just watched my 401K drop 10% in value since October 1.

You know I was just saying that you should get taxed closer to what your fair market value of your house is. You are being daft purposefully. They reassess annually. If your house value goes up in that time then you are saving money. If it goes down over that year, you get taxed a bit extra.

How have the last 10 years gone for you in that regard? I'm thinking your assessed value was a good deal under what you would have put it on the market for for almost every single one of those years. Even with the current market slow down, my assessment is roughly 20k lower than what I'd list it for.

What I am saying is the assessed values are fair. It is just plain dumb to think they wouldn't change the assessed values to reflect market conditions. If the market truly slows a lot, you will see the assessed values drop next year. God forbid, 1 year out of 10, you pay taxes on slightly more than your home is worth. When the other 9, you were paying on less. I don't even think that's the case. I'd be willing to bet your current assessed value is less than you would put it on the market for right now. Your are not answering that (obviously) and being quite phony about it.

You know I was just saying that you should get taxed closer to what your fair market value of your house is. You are being daft purposefully.

It's becoming more and more obvious that you just don't get it. And now you've felt it necessary to resort to personal insults. Great.

One more time - it doesn't matter what the assessed value is. If your assessed value drops, the tax rate will be set higher. If your assessed value in the next assessment goes up, the new tax rate will be set so that the city gets it's 2 1/2 increase. It may or may not go up, but your taxes will go up. The goal is to assure that the City gets every cent of the 2 1/2 percent they are allowed to increase the tax levy by. Assessed value is meaningless unless it's considered in conjunction with the current tax rate, and neither has anything at all to do with current fair market value.

What It Is

It is just plain dumb to think they wouldn't change the assessed values to reflect market conditions. If the market truly slows a lot, you will see the assessed values drop next year.

Of course they will change the assessed value, but it reflects changes in market conditions in the prior year, not current conditions. During the the last bubble, when valuations due to market conditions dropped for several straight years my actual tax bill rose every single year because the tax rate was set higher to compensate so that the city would get all of it's 2 1/2 percent increase.

What It Is

I'd be willing to bet your current assessed value is less than you would put it on the market for right now. Your are not answering that (obviously) and being quite phony about it.

I'm not daft, dumb, or phony. My current assessed value is quite a bit lower that the current market value. I'm pretty sure I alluded to that several times already. My assessed value for this year is 637K. Projected market value varies quite a bit depending on what tool you use, but for our purposes, let's use Realtor.com's projection, which is 703.5K. Unless there is a precipitous drop in market values across the board, I fully expect my and most other assessed values to go up next year, in which case the tax rate will probably go down again to compensate for Prop 2 1/2 limitations. Again, even that's not really relevant. My taxes are likely to increase by around 2 1/2%. There will be some outliers, but I doubt very much if I'll be one of them.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain this to you any more, and I'm not at all impressed by your descent into insults. That's chicken$hit, and I have no time for that.